This is an interesting issue (aren’t they all?). What do I mean by "interesting"? Did I learn something? Were there personal memories or reflections sparked? Did I think differently about the work? Do I engage in that work differently? Well, yes, actually.

As a beginning, I’ve started this editorial by examining the term "interesting" and what it means to me. This is a more basic demonstration of deconstruction than that undertaken by Veronica Pacini-Ketchabaw who "engage[s] students in deconstructing the dominant discourses of developmental psychology that produce the measures, standards and "best practices" (in)forming child and youth care (CYC) frontline work" (Dean, Harpe, Lee, Loiselle, Mallet, this issue p.43). I’ve chosen to include all five authors names here (alphabetically) even though that is not required by the APA style guide (which we usually follow). I included them all because they were very clear that they contributed equally and that they designed the graphic (which you will see with their article) to represent their authorship and to be particularly clear that there was no "first" author. As an editor of this journal I had a bit of a struggle with this because these are issues of great importance in academia, but not such great importance in the world of practice where team work is the norm. These authors bridge those two worlds, just as Relational Child and Youth Care Practice tries to bridge the worlds of practice and academia recognizing that new and great ideas are created in both.

What else did I find "interesting" in this issue? The regular columnists are always interesting. Usually my column focuses on the issues surrounding the professionalization of our field. Without any prior consultation it appears that Thom Garfat and I "traded" columns this round. He has written about competence as it compares to professionalism. On occasion professionalism and competence are equated. When Thom takes them apart (deconstructs them) they are not the same. Jack Phelan reviews the book Generation Me which describes the tendency of the current generation of post-secondary youth and those who have just entered the work force to focus less on "service" and more on "self." Phelan argues that child and youth care practitioners combine their work with service to others. His arguments and the book can be examined in the context of the discussion about assessing students for personal suitability in the field presented in an article by Rammage, Stagg, Puder, and Melder-Crozier. Does personal suitability require a service focus?

Both Carol Matthews and Garth Goodwin raised some personal memories for me as I read their columns. Now We Are Six by A.A. Milne was one of my favourite books as a child and as Carol Matthews concludes her columns with us, she notes, appropriately that six is a critical age in growing up, an age where personal privacy becomes something of concern. Matthews also notes that Charlotte has the special gift of "two eyes" that look to the sky. I am reminded of the symbolism of Aboriginal spiritual leaders and Garth Goodwin’s column that reminds us all about the importance of going beyond just cultural sensitivity to active recognition of the different approaches to "treatment" that are part of the Aboriginal ways. We need to support Aboriginal efforts to design methods that work for their children and youth. They listen to and respect the knowledge and wisdom that their elders bring, without needing to find demonstrated evidence that "it works."

Also interesting in this issue; Garfat, Krueger, and Ferguson reflect on their many years in the field and what child and youth care means to them as a result of those many years. They are our elders - stepping up to take Henry Maier’s place; and all of them acknowledge his mentorship. Roy Ferguson reflects on the development of the first University program in child and youth care at University of Victoria and provides a perspective and a history of the development of Child and Youth Care in Canada that the founders of the many educational programs currently developing across Canada would do well to read.

So much of our learning and understanding can be expressed outside of the world of the written word. The article by Mark Krueger was a challenge to publish in this journal and we have not captured all of the essence. You must imagine, for example, the drum beat that went with his discussion of the core of child and youth care and you only see snapshots of the dance. All the same, the article provides a challenge to me to consider how to deconstruct our ideas about the "legitimate" ways of presenting knowledge, information, and concepts that describe child and youth care practice. We have tried with this journal to challenge some of those traditional ideas about "legitimate" knowledge and presentation of the same. Our colourful format, our inclusion of pictures, poems, and varied types and forms of writing is our attempt to bring together the world of practice and the world of knowledge. We are still limited to the printed page, or the printed page replicated in an electronic database.

"Interesting." I’ll need to spend some time deconstructing this idea and my internal dialogue around it …